Cases 1 - 10 of 29
Pino v. Woodall et al
as 1:2021cv00316
Plaintiff:
Joe Pino
Defendant:
R. Woodall and N. Stevenson
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Silimon v. R. Woodall et al
as 3:2020cv01416
Defendant:
Mark S. Inch and R. Woodall
Plaintiff:
Willie Silimon
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Boaz v. Woodall et al
as 3:2020cv01194
Defendant:
Mark S. Inch and R. Woodall
Plaintiff:
Jabez Boaz
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cannady v. Woodall
as 1:2020cv00130
Interested Party:
Pro Se Department
Plaintiff:
Cornelius Cannady, Sr.
Defendant:
R. Woodall and Ronald Woodall
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Anti-Tranny Political Action Committee et al v. State of North Carolina et al
as 7:2020cv00028
Defendant:
Jeff McCracken, County of Orange, James T. Bryan, III and others
Plaintiff:
Napier Sandford Fuller and Anti-Tranny Political Action Committee
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Anti-Tranny Political Action Committee et al v. State of North Carolina, et al
as 7:2020cv00029
Defendant:
Jeff McCracken, County of Orange, James T. Bryan, III and others
Plaintiff:
Napier Sandford Fuller and Anti-Tranny Political Action Committee
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Lyles v. Tillery, et al
as 5:2019cv00459
Plaintiff:
Hildred Manuel Lyles, Jr.
Defendant:
Erik Hooks, Danny Safrit, Katy Poole and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Harris v. Deese et al
as 1:2017cv00095
Plaintiff:
Jerome Kendrell Harris
Defendant:
K. Deese, R. Woodall, Pearlie Smith and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Weathington v. Bivens et al
as 1:2016cv00400
Plaintiff:
Jerome Weathington
Defendant:
Jarita Bivens, Jacqueline Banks, Lowonda Marsha Hayes and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Clark v. Banks et al
as 1:2016cv00208
Plaintiff:
Irvin Kenneth Clark
Defendant:
Jacquline Banks, R. Woodall and Mike Hatten
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
